Salazar v Buono; Christian cross challenge at SCOTUS blog.

Buono, the challenger to the Christian cross that stands in the Mojave National Preserve in California will have his day in the Supreme Court at 10 am tomorrow (10/7/09)
Not sure if it is covered elsewhere but the SCOTUS blog carries the Background, Merit Briefs, and Analysis here: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/salazar-v-buono-the-cross-in-the-deser...
Hope I haven't duplicated posts.

Replies to This Discussion

By saying that the cross is not a religious symbol, are they not being 'Christ-deniers'?
Jesus, who was the one crucified on the cross - in case the defense forgets - mentions denial when talking to Paul, telling him; 'before the cock crows, you will deny me three times'.
By taking this position, are they not Christ-deniers?
(BTW: Don't you just hate it how the spell-checker want to initialize 'christ'. This is something else we should address)

They always cross the line because they have had special privileges for so long that they perceive them as rights.

If crosses start to flourish like weeds, then perhaps we atheists should development a symbol which is as offensive to everyone as the cross is to us.
Can anyone come up with something a little more repugnant than the atheist 'atom' or letter 'A'?
Once we have established that, perhaps we can start looking for places to erect them.

How about this satanic symbol - those Satanist sure know how to offend . . . then, it doesn't take much to offend a religionist of any persuasion.

Update on the Supreme Court case subject of this forum:
This link features an update on this case:http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/friday-round-up-4/
There you'll find the article and all relevant references. It is about 1/3 down the page
Here is a snippet:

"The discussion of Wednesday’s argument in Salazar v. Buono (08-372) is still going strong. At the First Amendment Center, Tony Mauro posits that an opinion the case will likely focus less on the Establishment Clause and more on Congress’ 2004 decision to transfer the land on which the cross sits to a private party. But even if the Court does adopt this narrow focus, Mauro argues, the ruling in Salazar could open “another front in First Amendment litigation:” whether the government can remedy potential constitutional violations simply by “privatizing” the dispute. Mauro also covers the case at the National Law Journal, where he writes that it no longer seems that the case will be decided on standing, as many had anticipated it would."